When you stop and consider that the only real climate denial out there is the notion that the climate should not change from a level arbitrarily set at around 150 years ago, then it turns out the above quote appears to be aimed squarely at believers of catastrophic man-caused global warming.

Except it was set millennia before then – when our ecosystems formed and biota adapted to it. Perhaps you no nothing about ecology, but small differences in environmental conditions wreak havoc with ecosystems. Imagine 90% of the trees dead where you live. Crops fail more and more, and you can’t just move northward – the soils is likely no good.

And small differences in climate wreak havoc with sea level, with water supply, with agricultural growing ranges, with disease and insect vector ranges. Just a few degrees is the difference between an ice age and zero ice on the planet.

But it is even worse than that, because as climate warms, it doesn’t warm smoothly. Instead you see an increase in hot weather anomalies compared to cold weather anomalies. Which means that, according to the experts, in a few decades we will start to see heat waves which approach and then surpass the human wet bulb temperatures. Which means even young healthy people will not be able to survive heat waves. If BAU continues, in 100 years or so, vast regions of the continents will be uninhabitable. THAT is the future you think is just as good as 1850.

Storm surges will flood major port cities. On 9/11 several large building fell in NYC, and our national economy ran aground for two weeks. Imagine what will happen when all of NYC is under a 20 foot storm surge What do you think is going to happen to Wall Street (and the retirement benefits of 300 million people) when 6 million people and the business center of the world have no power or food or rescue or options and rioting breaks out? And then sea level keeps accelerating for the next 200 years it it just keeps happening everywhere, over and over and over, displacing billions and ruining all agriculture along every coast and river valley.

That not catastrophic enough for you? Can you really be so stupid, so stubbornly moronic to make the argument you have just made – that there is nothing special about the climate of the past ten millennia that we should value? Do you really think you have something valuable to contribute when your brain works so poorly?

Of all the dumb, dishonest arguments you have laid about so maliciously, this must be the most thick-headed.

In support of your concern, a quote from this article: “Continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases could launch a disintegration of the [West Antarctic] ice sheet within decades… raise[ing] the sea level as much as three feet by the end of this century… the total rise of the sea could reach five or six feet by 2100, the researchers found. That is roughly twice the increase reported as a plausible worst-case scenario by a United Nations panel just three years ago, and… would likely provoke a profound crisis within the lifetimes of children being born today.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html

Since the sea level graph looks similar to the temperature graph above, and London was founded near sea level just about 2,000 years ago, REAL Climate deniers like yourself are, essentially, denying London.

Don’t forget the Fleet suppositories either. They are very easy to apply, especially for ultraconservatives, deniers and right wing-nuts of all kinds—-all they have to do is pull their heads out of you-know-where, put the suppository on top of their heads, and put their heads back into their normal dwelling place.

And while we’re on the topic,
Q—-Who does a conservative see if he has a brain tumor?
A—-A proctologist
Q—What is the recommended treatment for a conservative’s brain tumor?
A—-Preparation H

Godwin’s law states—“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1”

This discussion has not mentioned Hitler or Naziism at all—-beyond the brief mention on the page copied in the body of the post, where it relates only to the Koch brother’s “toilet training” by their governess. So it does NOT meet the criteria for Godwin’s Law. Another point that sailed WAY over your head.

Is all well with you over there in the UK? Have you been taking courses in logical thinking, science, reading comprehension, and how to avoid motivated reasoning? Perhaps getting some counseling? We’re holding open a seat for you here (for when you complete your studies and can contribute meaning
fully).